Think about it. The criticisms have gone from, “Barack Obama associates with notorious [and mythical] anti-Semites” and “The election of Barack Obama will mean the death of Israel” to “he didn’t list a bunch of religions in precisely the order I would prefer.”

I look at that kind of reach as a positive thing! I mean, if that’s all they’ve got, he’s doing okay, you know?

It’s like, there’s a reason I never took the time to criticize President Bush’s choice of shoes. It’s because he was Satan, and I didn’t care what kind of loafers he put his hooves in each morning. There were bigger things to discuss.

I don’t know, Myca — there are also some more policy-oriented objections. Did you see that the ADL’s Foxman has objections to fairness?

Some Jewish leaders say the very qualities that may appeal to the Obama administration — Mitchell’s reputation as an honest broker — could spark unhappiness, if not outright opposition, from some pro-Israel groups.

“Sen. Mitchell is fair. He’s been meticulously even-handed,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “But the fact is, American policy in the Middle East hasn’t been ‘even handed’ — it has been supportive of Israel when it felt Israel needed critical U.S. support.

“So I’m concerned,” Foxman continued. “I’m not sure the situation requires that kind of approach in the Middle East.”

Sailorman’s right: there is a statement here. The statement isn’t “Jews aren’t important,” though — it’s “We need to remember that there are American Muslims and they are as important and worthy of dignity and recognition as any other religion I’m listing.”

I actually think the list order is deft, and I applaud it (although I would have preferred Obama to say “as well as a spectrum of other beliefs” or something like that to include Pagans, Zoroastrians, etc.)